Sender: lockhart@hub.org
Message-ID: <37B1784C.2C1E3F1F@alumni.caltech.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999 13:19:08 +0000
From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Constantin Teodorescu <teo@flex.ro>
CC: PostgreSQL Interfaces <pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpgtcl and array fields return format - PROPOSAL
References: <37B1178F.1BDFB003@flex.ro> <37B16B29.D12E32A7@alumni.caltech.edu>
	<37B16D68.11B91C64@flex.ro> <37B16D5A.999F0A43@alumni.caltech.edu>
	<37B17555.8FEDF23D@flex.ro>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> For the moment, the current syntax helps PgAccess. It returns exactly
> the same format as it would be used to INSERT INTO queries so if you
> would try to define a table with an array field of strings for example
> you are able to add records and update them directly from PgAccess.
> From that point of view, the new array field return format would give me
> headaches for Pgaccess in order to restore the {"..","..",".."} format
> used for updating records.
> Am I missing something about the *input* format?

No, that is the issue I was bringing up. Perhaps we at least need
"convert to/from" functions to help with formatting arrays??

> On the other hand, I have discovered in the libpgtcl source that there
> is a TCL_ARRAYS that if defined, would return array fields format
> exactly as a tcl list. But it is not defined anywhere. I think that the
> behaviour of libpgtcl should be consistent so should we define
> TCL_ARRAYS by default in the next release?

So this is what you were proposing anyway, right? Or would you have
other changes to make too?

                      - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart				lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California